Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Sh. Shiv Prasad vs M/S N.D.M.C on 17 November, 2007 cites

Tata Consulting Engineers And ... vs Tata Consulting Engineers And Anr. on 17 January, 2002

06. In view of the above observations and the evidence brought on record, I am of the view that claim of overtime is not maintainable under section 33-C(2) as there is no prior adjudication of the same nor is it an admitted claim. I am supported in my opinion by Tata Consulting Engineers & Associates Staff Union vs. Tata Consulting Engineers and others 1996 LLR 708, wherein it was held that Section 33-C(2) is only for computing the dues that an employee is entitled in law. 9 Jurisdiction under section 33-C(2), as has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court, does not extend to the adjudication of any right which is claimed by the employee. The claim of overtime by workman under section 33-C(2) of I.D. Act cannot be entertained by the court since it is not based on existing right.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Kankuben (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. Etc. Etc on 20 March, 2006

In the same strain is Union of India & Another vs. Kankuben (dead) by L.R.s and others etc. etc., 2006 LLR 494, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a claim for overtime by a workman under section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act will not be tenable in view of the settled law that such a claim is to be adjudicated on the basis of existing right of the workman, hence, the Labour Court misdirected itself in allowing the claim of the workman.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 151 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1